The President could have recorded conversations with Comey

The District of Columbia's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. DC makes it a crime to record a phone call or conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. See D.C. Code § 23-542.

2seaoat wrote:The District of Columbia's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. DC makes it a crime to record a phone call or conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. See D.C. Code § 23-542.

Oh, good grief. Trump lied...again. Is anyone surprised by that? Comey is not my favorite person by a long shot, but who could seriously believe that he gave assurances to Trump about an ongoing investigation? He would have to be completely clueless, but we know he's not. I think we know who is clueless.

But...hold on...what if he did tape Comey? He could alter the tapes and release them to the press.

Except, the President is not sure if the FBI director had gotten a warrant, and in fact was taping his attempt to influence the investigation.

I think what you're stating is that, if Trump taped Comey without his knowledge and consent, he would have committed a crime. I don't think committing a crime matters to Trump. He's crossed that line too many times to count.

I think he's been laundering money through several foreign entities for so long that he doesn't care where the money comes from, so long as it keeps his empire afloat. I think he has always had mental problems, but he was insulated by money. I think he doesn't give a damn for the United States, nor for its citizens. And he's going down...only a matter of time.

That is not what I am saying. DC is a one party consent state. If one party knew of the recording, the recording was legal. In Illinois it has been a nightmare since 2014 as they require both parties consent unless it is in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy. The courts have ruled various versions of the statute unconstitutional. All I am saying is in DC a person can record a conversation as long as they are a participant and they consent to the recording. The other person can have no idea.

2seaoat wrote:That is not what I am saying. DC is a one party consent state. If one party knew of the recording, the recording was legal. In Illinois it has been a nightmare since 2014 as they require both parties consent unless it is in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy. The courts have ruled various versions of the statute unconstitutional. All I am saying is in DC a person can record a conversation as long as they are a participant and they consent to the recording. The other person can have no idea.

So Trump can record Comey without his knowledge and easily edit the tape to indicate that Comey said things that weren't said...he can give it to the press...the press he likes...and pretend that Comey said things that were never said...and no one can do a thing to stop him. I am so sick and tired of this PRETENDER.

I doubt that anybody would go to that trouble. Particularly that it is prey much irrelevant until the actual crimes start to be revealed. The rush to judgment is just like what was done to Hillary. I am not a real fan of the same. As much as I dislike President Trump, I have not seen one scintilla of evidence of his Russian involvement directly. I am certain that the Russians tried to compromise him, and I suspect some of his campaign people were complicit, but without an investigation being completed, it is simple hyperactivity right now.....mostly partisan lock him up stuff. I think the American people will get on board when they start seeing fire, and not just suspicious smoke.

Comey did not ask for a dinner to meet w/ Trump. Trump is lying out his ass. There are no recordings of Trump and Comey. Trump's throwing out a red herring knowing Comey can't deny it. They've got evidence on Trump but it's not as strong as they would like. Trump knows they know. He tried to stop Sally Yates from testifying claiming executive privilege. Now who does that if they're innocent?

I certainly have not claimed anyone is innocent, but the presumption of innocence has to be overcome by elements of a crime being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I have not seen one scintilla of evidence to date which would put anybody in jail. The grand jury is looking at that evidence. The FBI is investigating and gathering evidence, but for people to do to President Trump what was done to Hillary Clinton in a very partisan fashion remains in my mind fundamentally wrong given the presumption of innocence. Some of Trump's behavior could simply go to his multiple personality disorders where he has a fixation that people think he cheated and that in fact he did not WIN, and in fact he LOST. To a normal person this would simply pass, but his constant tweets and his obsession concerning the same I think explains his behavior more than any evidence to date proves he has broken the law, and he is trying to cover it up. He in fact could have been an active participant with the Russians and in fact broken the law. He could in fact be intimidating a witness, and attempting to obstruct justice, but we will have to wait for facts.

2seaoat wrote:The District of Columbia's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. DC makes it a crime to record a phone call or conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. See D.C. Code § 23-542.

The White House is Federal property, you twit! The D.C. Code doesn't apply,The Federal Government has Territorial Jurisdiction.

I certainly have not claimed anyone is innocent, but the presumption of innocence has to be overcome by elements of a crime being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I have not seen one scintilla of evidence to date which would put anybody in jail. The grand jury is looking at that evidence. The FBI is investigating and gathering evidence, but for people to do to President Trump what was done to Hillary Clinton in a very partisan fashion remains in my mind fundamentally wrong given the presumption of innocence. Some of Trump's behavior could simply go to his multiple personality disorders where he has a fixation that people think he cheated and that in fact he did not WIN, and in fact he LOST. To a normal person this would simply pass, but his constant tweets and his obsession concerning the same I think explains his behavior more than any evidence to date proves he has broken the law, and he is trying to cover it up. He in fact could have been an active participant with the Russians and in fact broken the law. He could in fact be intimidating a witness, and attempting to obstruct justice, but we will have to wait for facts.

Boy, you are one slow learner.

How many times do you have to be hit in the face with a dead cat before you smell it??

Here's a hint; with Trump you don't have to choose between maliciousness and stupidity - with Trump it's ALWAYS both.

The White House is Federal property, you twit! The D.C. Code doesn't apply,The Federal Government has Territorial Jurisdiction.

DUH!

This has just become more fun than a barrel of monkeys pretending they are Orwellian scholars. So your argument is that when one is on federal property that the jurisdictional laws of that state and territory do not apply. So in Illinois, I can lure someone into the lobby of the federal building, and tape record a conversation without their permission, and the Cook County states attorney is barred from prosecuting me for a violation of Illinois law. Duh is right.

So, the cited statute covering DC would also be inapplicable because the tape recording happened at the White House. Double Duh.

How many times do you have to be hit in the face with a dead cat before you smell it??

Show me the dead cat. Show me where anybody has presented the elements of a crime which can be prosecuted. I was told for two years that there was a dead cat in the Hillary is a crook nonsense. People did not even understand the elements of the crime which Hillary was accused, and certainly no prosecutor could have convicted her of a crime, yet the same people who laughed at that silliness are doing the exact same thing in these investigations. I can wait until a dead cat is found, and all the innuendo and disdain for President Trump, like the disdain for Hillary Clinton does not make a prima facia case.

2seaoat wrote:The White House is Federal property, you twit! The D.C. Code doesn't apply,The Federal Government has Territorial Jurisdiction.

DUH!

This has just become more fun than a barrel of monkeys pretending they are Orwellian scholars. So your argument is that when one is on federal property that the jurisdictional laws of that state and territory do not apply. So in Illinois, I can lure someone into the lobby of the federal building, and tape record a conversation without their permission, and the Cook County states attorney is barred from prosecuting me for a violation of Illinois law. Duh is right.

So, the cited statute covering DC would also be inapplicable because the tape recording happened at the White House. Double Duh.

The White House is part of a National Park, President's Park to be precise, and the Federal government has "Exclusive Jurisdiction" in all National Parks. In Federal Buildings and some other national properties, "Concurrent Legislative Jurisdiction", which is different, applies. Look it up, asshole.

I do not have to look it up. I know it. If a person commits a murder on federal property the state or territory can prosecute. Period. You might want to read your cut and paste and think about the word concurrent. Stupid is hard to fix but it is good to know that in between Canterbury Tales you typed a 35 page Orwellian treatise as an undergraduate, and emulated the Summoner. He spouted Latin phrases in an attempt to fool those around him that he was educated and intelligent. In the end a fools errand. You do understand the statute I quoted on the first part of this thread was a federal statute, and your distinction of the the federal law not applying to a federal park is a dog chasing one's tail. The statute I quoted is applicable. Exclusive jurisdiction is limited, and there are exceptions depending on the crime and the sequence of the crime, but in this thread the very law I quoted was federal. Again stupid is hard to fix.

I certainly have not claimed anyone is innocent, but the presumption of innocence has to be overcome by elements of a crime being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I have not seen one scintilla of evidence to date which would put anybody in jail. The grand jury is looking at that evidence. The FBI is investigating and gathering evidence, but for people to do to President Trump what was done to Hillary Clinton in a very partisan fashion remains in my mind fundamentally wrong given the presumption of innocence. Some of Trump's behavior could simply go to his multiple personality disorders where he has a fixation that people think he cheated and that in fact he did not WIN, and in fact he LOST. To a normal person this would simply pass, but his constant tweets and his obsession concerning the same I think explains his behavior more than any evidence to date proves he has broken the law, and he is trying to cover it up. He in fact could have been an active participant with the Russians and in fact broken the law. He could in fact be intimidating a witness, and attempting to obstruct justice, but we will have to wait for facts.

The main reason Trump didn't record any conversations w/ Comey is he would have been solidifying evidence he asked Comey to pledge his loyalty to him rather than the investigation which would be obstruction. Trump was too stupid to realize he crossed that line. I think the FBI has evidence they haven't released but they know they need way beyond a reasonable doubt because it's the President.

I agree they have to go way beyond the normal standard or the FBI will be brought into a political chit storm. However, I would not put it beyond President Trump to have asked for his loyalty knowingly outside the tape recording area, and then sitting down at dinner and saying exactly what Trump said he said. The man is not lying by accident. He has defrauded people and lied his entire career. To expect him not to set up the FBI director and bring question on the entire integrity of the FBI is well within his life experience. However, Comey can wait. He probably knows enough about the investigation to know in the end he will be vindicated by facts concerning the Russian interference with the election, and some sort of complicity.

2seaoat wrote:I do not have to look it up. I know it. If a person commits a murder on federal property the state or territory can prosecute. Period. You might want to read your cut and paste and think about the word concurrent. Stupid is hard to fix but it is good to know that in between Canterbury Tales you typed a 35 page Orwellian treatise as an undergraduate, and emulated the Summoner. He spouted Latin phrases in an attempt to fool those around him that he was educated and intelligent. In the end a fools errand. You do understand the statute I quoted on the first part of this thread was a federal statute, and your distinction of the the federal law not applying to a federal park is a dog chasing one's tail. The statute I quoted is applicable. Exclusive jurisdiction is limited, and there are exceptions depending on the crime and the sequence of the crime, but in this thread the very law I quoted was federal. Again stupid is hard to fix.

Stupid may be hard to fix but ignorance is easy to fix. Look it up, you ignorant asshole!

2seaoat wrote: The statute I quoted is applicable. Exclusive jurisdiction is limited, and there are exceptions depending on the crime and the sequence of the crime, but in this thread the very law I quoted was federal.

You cited "D.C. Code § 23-542".

If it had been a Federal citation it would have read U.S.C. § xx.xx with the Title number preceding, e.g. 29 U.S.C. 25.351

Exclusive means EXCLUSIVE, by the way. If there are exceptions then it's Concurrent Legislative and they are expressly written into the agreement.

It may be Oatie, Comey did say to him he was not under investigation. Remember this meeting was in January. Flynn's debacle was after that which may have changed everything. I don't see how Comey saying that makes any difference. If trump wasn't under investigation then Comey wasn't commenting on an active investigation.

This is the federal statute on all federal property which is verbatim the federal law in DC.

Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation.

Please show where I was wrong where the White House is controlled by a one party consent. Again, the DC law is federal law and it is exactly as I stated when I started this thread. You attempt to try to show I was wrong, but only showed your pedestrian understanding of facts. One party consent applies to the White House, and you have wasted my time showing your ignorance.

Who was wrong? You do understand that DC code is boilerplate federal law? Evidently not. So if it is not a single consent law, please show me the other law which made my post incorrect? Is the White House governed by dual consent? I see....trying hard to prove your sophomoric posts have meaning. They do not, but keep googling. I do not have to do the same because I was correct that the recording was legal under a single consent. I am still waiting for your correction of that fact and how federal law does not apply. Too funny again. Should the defense rest?

Who was wrong? You do understand that DC code is boilerplate federal law? Evidently not. So if it is not a single consent law, please show me the other law which made my post incorrect? Is the White House governed by dual consent? I see....trying hard to prove your sophomoric posts have meaning. They do not, but keep googling. I do not have to do the same because I was correct that the recording was legal under a single consent. I am still waiting for your correction of that fact and how federal law does not apply. Too funny again. Should the defense rest?

Look, you cited D.C. Code § 23-542. If 18 U.S.C. applies, why didn't you cite that? D.C. Code does not apply in this case. 18 U.S.C. may be exactly the same and may apply but that's not what you cited.

All I'm saying is that you cited the wrong law!

I'll say it again, because you seem to be, well, kinda dense:

YOU CITED THE WRONG LAW, YOU ASSHOLE!

And now, just like TRUMP, you won't admit it. You both seem to have extremely fragile egos.